# User talk:Craig Pemberton

Active discussions

## List of elementary physics formulae

Fluid Dynamics looks like it is missing some info, but I checked the history and could not find much (I don't think I know how to search the history too well). The Kaleb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Yep. I lost that section of my notes and don't have my books with me. I'll fill it in if it's still empty once I can. Regards -Craig Pemberton (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

## Biographical entries

Hey mate. I noticed that you've started removing entries from the list of biographical articles with incompatible dates of birth. Good work! It's always nice to another person helping. Here's a tip though: when you find a website that verifies a particular date of birth, instead of putting the URL in your edit summary, try putting it in the 'references' section instead. That way, people will know where to verify the information themselves without having to dig through the article's history.

If you're not sure about how to work with references, feel free to leave a note either here or on my talk page. :) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

## Deletion

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, I had to undo your recent edit to Autarchoglossa because it is not appropriate to blank the contents of a page. If you think a page should be deleted, please follow the appropriate process as described at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

## Cowry help

It's good to have more interest in the Cowry article! The overriding concern (IMO) is the species list. I have worked on it for some time now. There were (and still are) many errors; so many that I deleted the list earlier this year (after fair warning in discussion), only to have a 'senior' editor restore it&#151;despite my concerns that it presumes to be authoritative&#151;because it was his 'preference' to have it. Several sub-species had been 'elevated' to species, a seemingly disproportionate number of new 'species' installed, plus a species with disallowed punctuation, another with a wrong date (based on an internet source considered an authority, but was wrong in this particular case),... blah, blah, blah. After recently investigating the -i or -ii endings on specific names, I have chosen to leave all further responsibility for errors in this list with the above-mentioned 'senior' editor.

The case of Cypraea gaskoini is typical: I queried those on the CONCH-L listserve group about this and had one person (from Hawaii) say, 'It IS spelled Gaskoinii in the citing reference,... only to have someone with deeper knowledge reply that while the 'temporary index' in Reeve's work spelled it with -ii, the actual description by Reeve spelled it with -i. I, for one, do not have such resources at my disposal and, from the species list in Cowry, no one thus far has.

May I presume that, since you added a wikilink to Cypraea granulata that you are going to create a stub for it, also? Oh!, BTW, did I say "Welcome" to the Cowry article? ;)
Makuabob (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

## Bivalve Issues

• Oyster claims heart and veins, yet bivalve claims hemolymph. If this is true both pages should clarify.
• Oyster has a section on nitrogen that sounds confused. Source is an article from The Economist which also sounds confused. It is possibly subtly incorrect due to the poor science editing and expert should check it.
• Pacific_oyster#Life_Cycle states that the larva is planktonic but the description describes a nektonic animal. Could someone clarify?

I tried to sort that last point out as best as I could. Invertzoo (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and glad to hear that you enjoyed the rapid growth of the corneous article. Actually believe it or not I have no degrees: I am more or less entirely self-trained in malacology, although over the years I have very much benefited from close association with various museums, and from knowing several experts quite well. I am a serious amateur, or semi-professional since I have had employment in the subject from time to time. My research has been all self-funded and independent. There are a few other people in this field who are advanced amateurs like myself. There is a long-standing tradition of that in this subject. As I say on my user page, I am an old-fashioned naturalist in the 19th century mold. It's a pattern that goes back to Charles Darwin and a hundred years before him too. Invertzoo (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

## Where's the Sarah shell in conchology?

Hi Craig. I've noticed awhile ago in the conchology article, that there was a brief mention of a rare shell called "the Sarah shell." I just checked back and it's gone. And I know I saw it there, at least twice, this summer. What happened to it? I'm writing an eco-thriller when that shell somewhat has a center focus on it. Wikipedia had the only mention of it, when I couldn't find it anywhere else on teh Internet. Please let me know, even if you got the source for it. Thank you. ~~Kristen Howe~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.183.16 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is still an unsourced reference in an older version. The mention was removed. As far as I can tell it was vandalism and "Sara" was someone the vandal was poking fun at. Remember; you can always see the older versions of any page by hitting the 'history' tab at the top of the page! Craig Pemberton (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

## WikiProject Gastropods Barnstars

 The Gastropod-star Although you are quite new to the project, for the work you have already put into ProjectGastropods, I award you, Craig, this Barnstar. Congratulations! Invertzoo (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 A piece of Jimbo's star For the effort that Craig has already put into helping make WikiProject Gastropods as great as it is, I award you a piece of the barnstar that Jimbo gave us on Saturday July 25 2009 at arnstar that Jimbo gave us on Saturday July 25 2009 at Wiki-Conference New York. This piece of star has a diamond in it! Invertzoo (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

## Names

Hello Craig, only generic names and specific names and lower ones are in italics in zoology. The upper ones are in not in italics in zoology. --Snek01 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Snek. I read that scientific names should be treated as latin (foreign) and thus italicized. This contradicts the more specific convention on capitalization of scientific names which I will now observe. Craig Pemberton (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

## Template deletion

You can't use a prod to delete a template - that's for articles only. You need Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Fences&Windows 19:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

## Sea shell topics template, here [1]

I see this template is listed for deletion. Honestly I don't really mind one way or the other if it gets deleted or not, but I could not find where it was listed so as to see what your objections are to it. Drop me a line and let me know OK? Thanks Invertzoo (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo! I'm not sure where this argument goes so I'll put it here and if that's incorrect I trust you'll tell me. The template can be seen on the page for nacre. The template does not give a coherent overview of the subject and thus lends noise and confusion to the article. If someone wants to take a random tangent through seashell related topics that is easy enough to do using the links within the article itself. The structure of the template is:

• seashells
• mollusk(sic) shells
snail shells
clam shells
nacre
tusk shells
chitons

---

crustacean shells
horseshoe crabs
echinoderm tests
brachiopod shells
---
exoskeleton
conchology

This seems to imply, among other things:

1. Mollusc shells are not a subset of seashells.
2. Snail is a valid taxon.
3. Nacre is a species of mollusc.
4. Octopi, squid, nautiluses, ammonites, etc are not molluscs or don't have shells.
5. That crustaceans, echinoderms, and brachiopods are molluscs.
6. That exoskeleton and conchology somehow fall together in the same category with taxa.
7. That there are no other relevant subjects falling under the header of seashells.

I find this very confusing and I don't see how it elucidates the subject at all. Craig Pemberton (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that it is a messy template all in all. By the way, "mollusk" is the correct spelling in the USA. I think this template was originally seen as a way that an amateur seashell fancier might easily find various seashell-related articles, but I'm not sure it even serves that purpose well.
I remember I tried to improve this template quite a while ago, but I know almost nothing about the code one uses in template space, so I had trouble fixing it up. But now I had another go, as you will see. It's still not great, but it's better, clearer anyway. Invertzoo (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
As for where you should post your objections, I think probably that should be on the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion page. As far as I can tell you did not list it there yet?
This is much better. I don't mind leaving it there now. I looked at that page and didn't see anything about seashells so I guess I would need to start a new section? Anyhow, I'll remove the template. It seems unnecessary but it's not harming anything and much more attractive and probably bound to be useful to someone. Thanks! =) Craig Pemberton (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I hope it turns out to be useful to someone. If not then it can be deleted at some point in the future I guess. Invertzoo (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

## SolReSol

Trying to find out all I can about SolreSol, and I came across an old university page that said you had written a translator program. If this is true then I'd love to find out more. I'm a school teacher in Australia and am trying to see if I can use solresol in a number of ways (one of which being a universal language that future scientists use to communicate with semi-sentient nano tech ((it's a SF novel))

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.84.128 (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry, forgot to leave any address if I have found the right person... If you have any info about translating solresol, can you drop me an email. teacher.travis[at]gmail.com

Thanks again..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.84.128 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have the source somewhere I'll contact my team-members to see if they are willing to release the source, which is likely. The program takes solfège and returns a moderately tripy animated colour gradient video with synthesized tones. The other part of the group wrote the translator code from English to SolReSol. -Craig Pemberton (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

## Bold letters in LaTeX

Try the \boldsymbol command: ${\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\mu }}}$ . You need to be using the packages amssymb and amsmath; which, it would seem, Wikipedia does. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I just point you to the guideline on page layout at WP:ALSO. Pages already linked in the body of an article are not normally put into the "See also" section as well. SpinningSpark 21:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

These are concepts which are parallel to the concept of the article, and as such, deserve to be listed in "See also" or a template. -Craig Pemberton (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

## Pronunciation of gyros

I don't see how they could have copied the pron. because it is different. In the case of 'gyro' (short for gyroscope), they give [jahy-roh] IPA /ˈdʒaɪroʊ/; in the case of 'gyros' (food), they give [jeer-oh, zheer-oh; Gk. yee-raw] IPA /ˈdʒɪəroʊ, ˈʒɪəroʊ; Gk. ˈyirɔ/. I do know that /'jiro/ would be more 'authentic', but that doesn't appear to be the standard English pronunciation. --macrakis (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets just take a survey of 5 or 6 dictionaries, including Wiktionary, and use the average ordering, with no commentary about which is more popular or whatever. -Craig Pemberton 20:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

## Project Gastropods

Hi Craig Pemberton, I just dropped in to check if you consider yourself to be still active in WikiProject Gastropods? I assume you would say yes because I see you recently reverted some vandalism on the Guilfordia yoka article, but I just wanted to check, as I am attempting to update our member's list. Thanks so much and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I haven't be doing much work on gastropods in particular, but I'm still around. Hope you're doing well. -Craig Pemberton 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

## This edit

Please explain. Phantom Hoover (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

## Merge discussion for Media planner

An article that you have been involved in editing, Media planner, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Avicennasis @ 09:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Avicennasis @ 09:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

## NPOV tag

You added this npov tag without any entry on the talkpage. Care to elaborate there? User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

## File source problem with File:Phymatinae egg.png

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an image for a draft I ended up not using. The copyright probably expired a century ago. I forget where it is from. It would be best if you went ahead and deleted it. -Craig Pemberton 02:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Thanquol

The article Thanquol has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neelix (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's okay to delete this. It was an exercise in working with Wikipedia for my brother-in-law. I won't personally vouch for it's notability. -Craig Pemberton 02:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:Freedom is a two-edged sword - Jack Parsons.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Freedom is a two-edged sword - Jack Parsons.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete away!-Craig Pemberton 06:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

## Robbie Mannheim

Hey Craig.. Don't know if you're around or if you remember me ;) doesn't seem like you've been editing much recently.. If you get a change, can you please have a quick look at my RfC Talk:Robbie_Mannheim#Proposal_to_move_this_page and if possible leave a comment with your opinion? There isn't much interest in the article at the moment, it's still a bit of a messy battleground and I think this would be a positive step to move it forward. Cheers mate. Vespine (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation makes perfect sense. Thanks for your help. Vespine (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I snuffled my way here just to thank you for myself. You helped with an issue on which we were a bit stuck. Your work looks of interest; one day I hope to peruse some of it. I am a lifelong fan of Einstein's, and enjoy studying the ramifications of Unified Field Theory.76.195.86.155 (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help out. =) I'm sorry if I voted differently than you were expecting Vespine. Best regards, -Craig Pemberton 01:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to return, I wish to ask if you can help or refer us to someone for Robbie_Mannheim. vespine and I are working hard and with total consensus to imrpove the work...but user Anupam continues to revert agreed-upon edits and foisting his POV without a peep on the talk page. His crazy issues have forced us to keep creating new topic headings just to address what he keeps doing. Please help! Would you respond at the very bottom of the talk page please?75.21.106.189 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time currently but I've requested outside arbitration. I hope something comes of it. -Craig Pemberton 23:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Craig. Sorry about this, can I just put on record that I had nothing to do with user 75 coming here and making this request. I think 75 has gone a bit overboard with his accusations. He doesn't seem to be the most stable kind of personality, he has very sporadic posting habits and a very short fuse. I tried to be objective and reasonable but 75 doesn't seem to be interested in listening to reason, for some reason he has it in his head that Anupam is some sort of evil scheming villain and it just seems he can't get along. When I gave him a list of anupam's edits for the past two weeks and showed him that I disagreed with about half of them, which were all single edits or single reverts (no 3 reverts), he flies off the handle, takes offence at something in my post and accuses me of excessively defending anupam, then storms off for the 3rd time.. I'm happy to change my stance if I see some evidence of Anupam's "transgressions".. Lol, 75's a character, I'll give him that, I like the guy and appreciate his help, but I think it's probably for the best if he takes a bit of a break. Vespine (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. Whatever is posted, the article is coming along well enough and I regret my lack of a fuse. I'm pleased that Vespine chimed in to clarify the issue. I did not mean to give the impression that I speak for Vespine, since one cannot speak for anyone else except oneself.75.21.111.206 (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

## List of epidemics

I think in general saying "references in respective articles" does not work well. If the subject article is vandalized, or innocently sources are removed, the article remains sourceless. Also, In this specific case, when I last maintained the list, many of the references were missing from the respective article. May I suggest that you add a column to the table for references, and restore the ones missing? I am not going to press this, that article has already taken too much of my time, so it's up to you. Cheers, and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If sources are missing from the articles, they should be moved to the articles themselves. Cleanly encapsulating the sources will encourage coherence and reduce errors. As not all epidemics listed have pages, this may not be possible. I like your idea of maintaining a column of sources, even though it will create a small amount of redundancy. BTW, the revision system ensures that commits never destroy data so we don't have to rely on ad-hoc systems like lists to back up our work. Cheers,-Craig Pemberton 01:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I could think of other reasons why a source in a list is different from a source that would be put on the subject article, but this would be for the sake of the argument, not the practice. As long as we agree to keep the sources, the reasoning is secondary. Are you planning on rewriting the entire page as one huge table? I thought braking into regions has its merits, though I can definitely also see how one table sorted by year has its merits too. How about adding a sortable "region" column to satisfy both needs? Cheers, and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have left the article in half-baked state. Any chance you'll return to it? --Muhandes (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh man I totally spaced on this one. Yes I need to finish! I'll try to get to it by this weekend. -Craig Pemberton 18:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Well done on completing it! --Muhandes (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Corneous

The article Corneous has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deutschgirl (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

## In Serializability : Tag - Introduction may be too long

05:47, 21 February 2011 Craig Pemberton (talk | contribs) (55,512 bytes) (lead should be clearer and shorter see WP:LEAD) (undo)

Craig,

The lead should give a fair short summary of the article. If too short it misses its purpose. In your Wiki links (in the tag) 3-4 paragraphs for a >30,000 article is acceptable, so I do not quite see the problem that justifies the tag. Please remove the tag.

This article has been evolved for almost five years. It is within a specialized mathematical area though an effort has been made to use English only rather than Math symbols. I find every word and sentence important, unlike other, non-mathematical texts, where you may have more latitude. It may be improved, but please do not cut text in a way that changes meaning. You ended with changing, e.g., to "serializability of a transaction" which does not have any meaning within existing concurrency control, and thus really harms the article. If you are not an expert (and clearly you are not), please do not change meaning (which clearly was not your intention, but you failed). --Comps (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --Comps (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

## Two-phase locking : Added cleanup tag

Copied from Talk:Two-phase locking

I don't have time to fix but capitalization and citation style is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Maybe this was what Neilc was getting after. -Craig Pemberton 00:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The previous citation style is a legitimate in-line one in Wiki, and sometimes I find it better for the reader (to see the ref's short ID in the text without navigating to the References, especially if many repetitions). I have researched. Comps (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, the introduction needs to be more clear and concise, giving a better sense of context to a reader. Details go later in the article, the intro should be a solid synopsis. -Craig Pemberton 00:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Craig, I appreciate your knowledge in Wiki guidelines and English, and they are very helpful for the article. However, when you change sentences' meanings and it results in incorrect statements, you harm the article. E.g., you ended up with "Neither 2PL or S2PL are known to be used in practice" which is an incorrect sentence. It should be "Neither 2PL or S2PL in their general forms are known to be used in practice" to be correct. As I wrote to you in Talk:Serializability this is a specialized Math subject, and very easy to fail in to a non-expert. I have not reverted since found value, but I had to correct, and have not finished correcting your corrections yet.
I find your clean-up tag in its current form quite useless. Please be specific, or remove tag. This article has been evolved in almost five years, and every word and sentence have received attention. Thanks, --Comps (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

--Comps (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

## LEGITIMATE CONCERNS

Wait, I mean... This is really me! BUT YOU'LL NEVER FIGURE OUT WHO!!!

--DarthCaboose (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

## License tagging for File:Mydaus areas.png

Thanks for uploading File:Mydaus areas.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

## Melogale range.png

OK, first of all, thanks for all the work you've been doing with the badger maps.

Secondly, could you tell me what the colors on this map mean? As far as I can tell, orange = Bornean ferret-badger, green = Javan ferret-badger, and azure = Chinese ferret-badger. But is red supposed to be historic range of all ferret-badgers? (and if so, do you have a source?) Otherwise, I'm going to assume it's supposed to be the Burmese ferret-badger range, and alter it accordingly.

Also, have you considered uploading your work directly to the Wikimedia Commons, so that people on other wikis can use your files? I see that you don't have an account there yet, but you can create one easily if you merge your accounts.

Thanks,
~Q

Hey! I'm working on each map doing something slightly better than the previous time. Those things include better documentation, possibly a visual key, moving to Commons, etc. Hopefully I'll have time to produce more maps soon. I'm thinking about writing some code to make things easier and less error prone. Thanks for input! Feel free to edit the map yourself. Craig Pemberton (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

## Invitation to help assess Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods

Hi. I am inviting members of some WikiProjects to take part in evaluating their projects in order to help the Wikimedia Foundation better understand such projects from the inside, to encourage reflection on best practices, and to compile a list of best practices as recommended by a number of projects. I am contacting you because you are listed as an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods. Having witnessed that project's work in the past in my volunteer capacity, I'd very much like to include it. I hope that you will have time and interest in participating. As much or as little as you would like to supply would be gratefully received. The assessment questions are posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Self-assessment. I will myself steer clear of the page until after any discussion seems to have become dormant, at which point I will ask questions to make sure that I am developing a good overview of opinions. Thanks. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

## Range maps

It's great that you're making the derivative range maps you've uploaded, but they're all missing credit for the authors and the other information required to establish their copyright status—except the images, such as File:Leopardus range.png, that I've added this to. They need to give the actual images from which they are derived; the licenses of the originals, which have to be compatible (see commons:Commons:Collages); and the authors. Would you mind adding this? For more information, you can see commons:Commons:Licensing, commons:Commons:Derivative works, and other pages here and on Wikimedia Commons; you probably can use tool derivativeFX to automatically generate full descriptions in the future. Thanks, —innotata 03:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Further, the map on the 'Otter' article has no key to explain what the colours refer to; it could be a diagram of the global distribution of otter breeds, or the population etc. Please could you include a key so the map isn't rendered meaningless. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.54.253 (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. The derivatives you've made without attributing the authors of the originals are violating the terms of the licenses, and thus are copyright violations. I don't want to get them deleted, but I don't want to fix all of them and don't think anyone else will; if they aren't fixed, I think I'll have to nominate them for deletion, this deletion is frequent for other types of derivatives. —innotata 22:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
No key has been added and the map is still very hard to understand. I would prefer that someone fixed it and cited the original authors. The fact that it doesn't have a legend at least is a very serious issue as the range map is thus impossible to understand. - Biocrite (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have a very busy schedule these days. I have a pie in the sky dream of handing all the data and attributions programmatically but I would probably need help from a GIS expert and way more free time than I foresee having any time soon. Genera and higher maps should be considered to inherit the citations of their child maps (eg species). A dedicated editor should be able to figure out the citations. The species maps are fully cited and clear of copyright issues to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore there should be a textual legend, or it should be decipherable for an editor who would like to fix it by looking at the child maps of a given map. 02:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record: these images are not clear of copyright issues until you attribute all contributors. That's how Creative Commons etc. licenses that require attribution work, we need to specifically know files are free. They can all be deleted at any time if you don't want to put in the work to attribute everybody whose work you used. —innotata 21:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

## File:Melogale range.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Melogale range.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

## Pantanal cat range map

I note that the range map of the Pantanal cat, which I believe is your work, contradicts the text of the article and the two range maps linked in the references section (one of which is behind a pay wall; the other is here). I gather that the map was interpretation based on an earlier version of the article, and on a range map for the colocolo, so the contradiction is understandable. However, I thought you should know, in case you wish to modify it accordingly. Anaxial (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

### Unspecified source/license for File:Salmo stomachicus range.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Salmo stomachicus range.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 18:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

## The map showing the range of the Mustela

Hi there. Thank you for your contributions. I think the Mustela range map you've introduced is not correct. At least it is in conflict with the text in the Mustela page and with map in the Mustela nivalis page. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.145.226 (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

## Reference and reference formatting advice

Hey Craig,

I just posted a question about references on a rarely-seen talk page and wondered if you could weigh in on it when you get the chance. It's at the Prose Life of Alexander talk page.

-Ben (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

## Otter range map

I noticed someone just axed your range map in that article, stating that there was no source or color key. I guess they have a point, at least re the latter (sources for range maps appear to be somewhat optional anyway, as far as I know). Could you please provide the color key? The map would certainly be nice to have in the info box... Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Craig Pemberton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2018 election voter message

 Hello, Craig Pemberton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2018 election voter message

 Hello, Craig Pemberton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)